WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/TBT/W/336 
8 June 2011  
 
(11-2821) 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade Original:   English 
  
 
THE IMPACT OF AUSTRALIA’S DRAFT REGULATION ON TOBACCO  
PLAIN PACKAGING BILL 2011 IN CIGARETTES  
AND OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS 
 
 
The following communication, dated 7 June 2011, is  being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Indonesia. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. As a tobacco and cigarette producing country , Indonesia is concerned about the draft 
regulation which standardizes all tobacco packagin g to show only a brand name and variant, along 
with health warnings and other government mandated information or markings, in specified locations, 
without any symbols, logos or design features of all tobacco products which are sold in Australia. 
2. Indonesia recognizes Australia's objective to contro l tobacco use to protect public health, but 
would like to submit its concerns and request clarification on a number of issues. 
II. CONCERNS 
3. Requiring tobacco products to be sold in standa rdised, plain packaging is an extreme measure 
that reduces the ability of tobacco brand owners from effectively branding and differentiating their 
products.  New tobacco brands from Indonesia woul d face yet another barrier in gaining market 
access against brands that are alread y popular in Australia.  Currently , the law prohibits using tobacco 
trademarks on anything other than tobacco packages  and trade communications.  It is unlawful to do 
anything which gives publicity to or promotes smoking,  tobacco products, or tobacco brands.  With 
all cigarette advertising already banned, new brands  entering Australia will find it virtually impossible 
to sell them in Australia.   
4. Further, by eliminating the value of branding , the economic value of Australia's WTO market 
access commitment in the tobacco sector  will be significantly diminished. 
5. It is our view that the public health benefits of  standardised, plain packaging needs to be more 
fully demonstrated. As plain packaging is a novel me asure, it is also uncertain whether this measure 
would reduce tobacco consumption at the population level, rather than at the level of individual 
brands. Against this negative imp act on new entrants to Australia’s market for tobacco products, there 
are arguably other tobacco control measures that are less trade restrictive.  
6. For the above reasons, we believe that the im plementation of the Plain Packaging Bill may 
present an unnecessary barrier to trade contrary to the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) 
Agreement Article 2.2.  We would therefore like to pose the following questions to better understand 
the justification of the proposed measure. G/TBT/W/336 
Page 2  
 
  III. QUESTIONS 
(a) Issue 1:  In notifying this measure to the TBT Committee, Australia recognizes that 
the proposed measure will result in barriers to trade. 
(i) Has Australia quantified the trade impact of this new measure?  
(ii) If so, can Australia provide the TBT Committee with a trade impact study? 
(iii) If not, can Australia satisfy the Committee that the impact of the measure on 
developing Members will not be negative as compared to developed Members?  
(b) Issue 2:  Australia states that the propo sed measure is necessary and contributes to 
Australia’s health objectives on the basis of  the opinion of the Preventive Health 
Taskforce.  
(i) Did Australia, or the Taskforce, examine any studies on the impact of plain 
packaging other than those listed in th e Consultation paper and if so which 
ones? 
(ii) To the extent that studies showing outcomes different from the studies listed 
in the Consultation Paper were exam ined, how did Australia weigh and 
measure the material impact of the different evidence?  
(iii) If Australia did not consult other studies, to what extent can it be confident 
that the proposed measure is necessar y and will contribute to Australia’s 
policy objectives?  
(iv) Since the drafting of the Consultati on Paper, has Australia taken into 
consideration any other studies showi ng the material contribution of the 
proposed measure?  
(v) Did Australia examine the material contribution of existing measures to the 
achievement of its health policy obj ectives or how the implementation of 
existing measures could or should be improved?  
(c) Issue 3:  WTO Members must ensure that t echnical regulations are not applied if they 
have the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade or discriminate 
against imports.   
(i) Has Australia considered alternative me asures and to what extent were those 
alternative measures weighed against th e measures proposed on the basis of 
trade restrictiveness?  
(ii) Has Australia taken steps to ensure th at there will be no discrimination as 
between local and imported tobacco pr oducts, not only in relation to 
cigarettes but other tobacco products on a like product by like product basis? 
(iii) Has Australia examined the extent to which the proposed limitation on the 
use of brands will have an impact on trade in the different like products 
covered by the proposed measure?   G/TBT/W/336 
 Page 3 
 
 
   
(d) Issue 4:  The TBT Agreement contains non-discrimination provisions that act in 
conjunction with the GATT to maintain c onditions for healthy competition between 
imported and domes tic products.  
(i) To what extent has Australia examined  the potential freezing of market share 
due to restrictions on the use of brands on both imported and domestic 
tobacco products in the context of  maintaining open competition?  
(e) Issue 5:  Australia has joined with the EU, Mexico, the United States, Chile, 
Argentina, and New Zealand in questi oning in the TBT Committee Thailand's 
proposals on pictorial health warnings on alcoholic beverages.  Australia expressed 
concern that Thailand did not have suffi cient scientific evidence to justify the 
measures being proposed and had not considered less trade-restrictive, less costly, and less burdensome alternatives.  Yet,  Australia’s proposed tobacco measure 
foresees a substantial expansion of the cigarette packaging space devoted to pictorial health warnings on the use of tobacco.   
(i) Is Australia in a position to distinguis h its position in relation to pictorial 
health warnings on alcoholic beverages from its proposals on tobacco? 
(ii) Does Australia consider that the same rules and concerns apply to its plain 
packaging proposal and to Thailand's proposals on pictorial health warnings on alcoholic beverages? 
(iii) Did Australia consider less trade-rest rictive measures for tobacco labeling?  
(iv) Is Australia in a position to distinguish the impact of the proposed measures 
from already implemented measures?  
 
__________